> While the article says “many jurisdictions,” and I cited only one specific jurisdiction, the onus is on the claimant to prove that there are, in fact jurisdic

> While the article says “many jurisdictions,” and I cited only one specific jurisdiction, the onus is on the claimant to prove that there are, in fact jurisdictions that prohibit security exceptions. It’s unlikely that security exemptions don’t exist in every relevant executive order, yet the article requires accepting that premise in order to make the claim that this is “illegal.” The beginning of the sentence you quoted has a link to the information you're looking for but it seems the quote you've pulled has cut that off. The word "noted" in "As we’ve noted previously" is a hyperlink pointing here[1] which itself links to an example order[2] that doesn't contain any such exception. [1]https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/06/08/tsa-to-take-mug-shots-of-domestic-air-travelers/#comment-3574618 https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/06/08/tsa-to-take-mug-shots... [2]https://www.smchealth.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ho_order_c19-8b_face_covering_revised_final.pdf https://www.smchealth.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/...